1.� CALL TO ORDER:The 11th meeting of
the Faculty Senate for 2004-2005 was called to order at 1:15
PM
on February 8, 2005 in the Park Center
Hall of Fame Room by Chair Ram Chaturvedi. ���������������������������������������������������� �����������������������������������������������������������������������

There
was a vote to approve the first amendment to the Presentation Skills Proposal, �Change
the above sentence to read: �Any course with a minimum of 3-credits in
any discipline may be submitted for PS designation� {SEE Old Business} (Defeated)

There
was a vote to approve the second amendment to the Presentation Skills Proposal,
�Add to section �3. Course Eligibility� the following statement: �If a course
is taught both in the traditional classroom and online, the traditional
classroom mode may be submitted for the PS designation.� When the traditional classroom mode is
approved for the PS designation, it shall be the responsibility of the
department chair to remove the PS attribute whenever this course is in an asynchronous
mode.� {SEE Old Business} (Approved)

IV.
CHAIR�S REPORT:

The Chair opened his report
by stating that at its last meeting on March 15 the Steering Committee received
reports from the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC presented by Drs. Griffen and Walkuski, and Dr. Barclay presented the Senate
Ad Hoc Committee Report on Senate Reconstruction.� Chaturvedi also announced he had attended the
College Council meeting where he gave a brief report.

V. VICE CHAIR�S REPORT:

J. Rayle
reported that the Senate Reconstruction Committee is working and there is no
new business beyond that report.

VI.� SECRETARY�S REPORT:

No report.

VII. TREASURER�S
REPORT:

C. DeGouff
reported that the Senate checking account has a new balance of $532.07 with
$463.50 in encumbered expenditures, leaving a balance of $63.57.� The balance in the College Foundation
investment account, maintained for scholarship purposes, is $22,994.00.� She added that the reserve requirement of
principal in order to maintain the account is $11,000 leaving $994.00
expendable.� The foundation, she said,
allows a 5% expenditure for the year, so the budget
expenditure will probably be $500 from the investment account to the checking
account. Therefore, the Senate needs to raise the amount of $431.43 in dues or
contributions to meet our expected contributions in the scholarship program.

P. Buckenmeyer
asked for clarification if the scholarship was $500 this year, having been $750
last year..�

DeGouff responded �yes� according to Linda Battin.

VIII.� PRESIDENT�S REPORT:

President Bitterbaum
gave a brief report to accommodate the other Senate committee�s business.� He announced that he had spent the prior week
in Albany and was pleased to share with the Senate that Senator
Seward was able to pass a new Education Bill which the Senate is supporting in
the amount of ten billion dollars. This will enable us to fund buildings for
education purposes.�� He explained that
Cornish is not adequate,� since it was
designed as a lab school, and hopefully as a result of this incentive we will
be able to design state of the art buildings for faculty and the School of
Education, as well as a child care center that our early childhood students can
use as a laboratory.�

IX. QUESTIONS FOR THE
PRESIDENT:

K. Rombach
asked when the outcome would be realized and we would find out �yes� or �no?�

Bitterbaum said it may be decided by April 1 but now it depends
on negotiation with the Governor.� He
expressed concern that the Governor will support it.� He said once it is signed by him it goes into
law and that all signs are pointing to a May budget.

X. VICE PRESIDENT�S
REPORT:

No report.

XI. STANDING COMMITTEE
REPORTS:

LongRange Planning Committee - No
report.

Educational
Policy Committee - No report.

Student Affairs Committee- Buckenmeyer reported that his committee will be meeting
this Friday to consider the 11 applicants for the Faculty Senate
Scholarship.�� He strongly recommended
faculty and staff to send in their ten dollar dues and he expressed the
importance of the Senate�s role on campus giving students representation of
what the Faculty Senate is all about, mainly leadership, and encouraged
everyone�s financial support..

Faculty Affairs
Committee- G. Clarke reported that his committee approved the
Physic�s Department policies and will be meeting on the next Thursday.

College
Research Committee- No report.

General Education
Committee- No report.

XII. SUNY SENATOR�S
REPORT:- No report.

XIII. COMMITTEE
REPORTS:

Committee on Committees- No
report.

XIV. OLD BUSINESS:

D. Kreh
explained that the debate would be limited due to time constraints and asked
the chair how much time he allowed.�
Chaturvedi replied ten minutes.

The Presentation Skills
Committee was represented by M. Barduhn.�
She opened by introducing herself as a member of the committee.� She went over the background of how the
committee had been operating, reviewing course proposals with a 3 credit
minimum, and said that if the amendment does get passed, allowing courses under
3 credits, then we would have to amend our GE report requesting a change from Albany.

D. Berger yielded the floor
to R. Spitzer, who distributed a handout consisting of a letter from 4
department chairs, chemistry, physics, biology and geology, expressing their
opposition to changing the current policy, in support of allowing courses under
3 credits.� He referred to the GEAR
report, which is a document dated August 2002, which the campus prepared and
sent to Albany to explain how we are going to fulfill SUNY�s
GE requirement. He said there was some confusion as to how the departments on
campus would satisfy oral presentation, however, this
was done before there was any college policy.�
He read from the GEAR group guidelines that each campus plan for Gen Ed
should fall to faculty members and that campus based assessment plans should be
approved by the Faculty Senate or Faculty Council prior to being submitted to
the GEAR group for formal review.� When
the GEAR report came out in 2002, Spitzer explained, there was no presentation
skills requirement yet because the campus was behind in that endeavor.� When the Senate did approve it in the Fall of
2004, with a late start, he said the GEAR requirements, with respect to the
campuses� ability to make decisions, what it came down to was, �What the campus
proposes is what fulfills the appropriate guidelines.�� He stated that on all SUNY campuses the
presentation skills requirement was filled by rolling it into composition courses, however our campus didn�t do that.� He finished by saying, �The campus is not
doing anything inappropriate by upholding the policy enacted last year� and
that, �any credit number should be allowed.�

D. Berger commented on this
Spitzer�s statement, referring to a comments from
department chairs in the Sciences, that it says they strongly support the
presentation skills component. He felt that presentation skills and existing
courses that meet the requirement are really what is
critical to him.� He said, �If a course
is teaching presentation skills it almost really doesn�t matter how many
credits it is. It is up to the individual�s department, with regard to writing
as well as presentation, and it may not be oral or may just be presentation. I
think the key is that does it teach presentation skills not how many credits it
is.�

K. Russell commented that, as
chair of the GE committee, when this issue came up and Bruce Atkins was on the
committee, although she would be have to find the exact verbiage, the General
Education Committee did roll presentation skills into the English Composition
classes and that was their intent.

M. Prus commented on Russell�s
remark. He explained the history and said that when Dean Ryder submitted our
plan for meeting the SUNY Board of Trustees requirement to the Provost�s
Advisory Committee on General Education, the original intent was General
Education Skills, which is that part of the learning outcome associated with
Basic Communication and Presentation Skills and wasn�t intended to be delivered
in Composition courses. He said the original submission to the Provost�s
Advisory Committee on General Education did not include a specific assessment
plan and that wasn�t until 2002 that the newly formed General Education
Assessment Review Committee asked for plans. He added that when those plans
were submitted it was the revision of the document originally submitted through
the Provost�s Office in April.� Revisions
included presentation skills requirements that came in response to concerns
raised by the GEAR group as to the perceived passage of the vehicle of delivering
oral and basic communication.���

The Provost reminded everyone
that whichever way the Senate voted the reality is that departments need to
take into account that all students, regardless of the department the student
is in, must demonstrate competencies on these learning outcomes that have been
articulated by the system.� Whether one
does a one or three credit course those learning
competencies must be embodies in there otherwise the students will be
disadvantaged.� And since the system is
using the results as part of funding incentive, we don�t want this campus to be
disadvantaged in any way because we are not providing students with what they
need to pass or to know that they are not meeting standards.

Alwes remarked that whatever
the intentions, presentation skills are not in composition courses. Secondly,
she asked regarding to a few Faculty Senate meetings ago that several Senators
were saying that they did not feel capable of teaching presentation skills. She
asked if that argument got lost. She also asked the President if he had not
indicated he would inquire as to the list of what SUNY required from these
presentation skills courses.

Alwes responded that Grantham
was supposed to do that.

Governali responded that part of the argument Alwes referred to
was that the kind of evaluation that was being implemented was so complicated
that people didn�t think they could teach the course, and they had to see what
the evaluation was and then decide.� He
also remarked that he was not sure if the Senate saw the two together.� He felt the Senate saw the standards but he
wasn�t sure if they saw the evaluation tool.

The Provost said the chair of
the presentation skills committee came to see her yesterday. The committee has
grave concerns because they only have a few courses that are available to
students.� There is a backlog of students
coming in, particularly transfer students, who must complete this requirement
before they graduate.� She said, �As it
stands we do not have sufficient courses for these students to take.� I think you must keep this in mind as you
discuss the issue and vote.�

D. Walker said if there is not sufficient
courses, is that under the 3 credit course system.� �He said if you offered 1 and 2 credit
courses would there be sufficient courses available to take?�

The Provost responded that
she would like the committee to answer that question, since they approve
courses and send them to her for final approval.�

M. Barduhn answered that
there are 21-23 courses now that have been approved. If you look at the list of
courses, she explained, her committee finds that there are a lot of concerns
about students being able to meet the requirement on the graduation date of May
5.� Her committee hasn�t received an
overwhelming amount of proposals at this point, she commented, and she
mentioned that the time line is out there.�
The issue, she stated, of 1 and 2 credit courses is also something that
has been under discussion, as well.� She
declared that if you have 1 and 2 credit courses involving presentation skills,
evaluation may be difficult.

M. King stated that since the
Senate has not seen the SUNY�s requirements and the
local evaluation together, he was wondering if the local evaluation was written
in such a complex way that would go well beyond what SUNY requires.� He said, �It would just make it that more
difficult to meet requirements.�

R. Spitzer said that the
discussion pointed to whether we want to be offering more courses, not
fewer.� He said in view that faculty want
to offer 1 and 2 credit courses and that SUNY needs to deliver that it needs to
deliver, he is was in support of the Presentation Skills Amendment, but pointed
out that it only applies to how the policy was written, to students admitted by
the fall of 2004.

The Provost pointed out that
there were students who applied before the fall of 2004 and that Spitzer was
mistaken.

Vegas made a motion to extend
the debate for five minutes which was approved.

D. Margine
said that of the 22 courses that have been approved, not all departments have
submitted courses forcing students to go out of the realm to meet the
requirement.� She said this was a grave
issue of the committee causing a serious backlog.

The President said this was a
serious issue he was unaware of. He felt it is unconscionable of the college to
bring students here and not have the ability to graduate. He stated that this
is the first issue that we, as a campus, have to resolve.

R. Olsson pointed out that
Presentation Skills are imbedded in the course and that students taking 1 or 2
credit courses may not get enough time to acquire the skills.�

D. Margine
said you have to look at the syllabus to see if it meets the learning outcomes.

A. Young said that he
supported it as it exists.� He felt
otherwise it would tie hands of the faculty whereas offering 1 and 2 credit
courses would follow the requirements of the committee originally voted on by
the Faculty Senate.

D. Kreh
read the amendment where it stated a course minimum of 3 credits.

The debate was over. D.
Berger asked for a seriatim vote.

There was a vote on both
proposal amendments {SEE Senate Actions}

XV. NEW BUSINESS:

D. Barclay gave a
presentation on behalf of the Faculty Senate Reconstruction Committee {SEE
Appendixes 1 and 2}�

K. Alwes stated that this was
an attempt to redistribute seats rather than add them.

D. Berger had comments and
questions referring to participation, indicating that Arts and Science has four
seats.� He said that from his many years
on the Faculty Senate that people from Arts and Sciences often express their
dissatisfaction to him with the Faculty Senate for different reasons.
Furthermore, he stated, whether or not one agrees with their reasons, this
explains the unfilled seats and lack of participation by Arts and Sciences on
the Senate.� He said, in regards to page
3 of the proposal referring to redistribution, he felt this was a reasonable compromise
with a recommendation of 7 seats for Arts and Sciences and 4 seats for the
other departments.� He said, �But one
thing I have heard a lot from some of my colleagues is the concept of a two
chamber Faculty Senate where we (also) have a College Senate.��

The Chair reminded him that
this was debate and discussion was limited to questions and information only.

Berger responded that he was
asking Barclay, as chair of the committee, if his committee had considered or
discussed having two chambers, one Faculty Senate and one College Senate, on
this campus.

Barclay responded that,
although his committee discussed it briefly, it was decided not to pursue it
because it was felt that the campus didn�t need two chambers and that the
Faculty Senate represents the whole college.

M. King responded, �There is
no Faculty Senate on this campus.�

K. Pristash
recognized J. Walkuski, who reminded the Senate floor that last year when he
chaired the Senate Reconstruction Committee they discussed having two chambers
of the Senate on campus.

B. Griffen
gave the report of the Senate Ad Hoc Committee on ROTC. {SEE
Appendix 2}. The appendixes to this report are also on reserve at the
Memorial Library.

�����������

J. Walkuski gave his minority
report of the ROTC Committee {SEE Appendix 5}

J. Walkuski asked Griffen about the meeting dates on the report challenging
the detail that they didn�t really meet until February 2, not January 26 as listed .� He also
mentioned the statement that 8 out of 11 faculty voted to deny ROTC, adding
that one member could not be tracked down and there was one missing student who
never attended.� He said the committee
only met 5 times.

K. Russell insisted that they
met initially on January 26 in Old Main. Walkuski challenged her on the actual
date.

D. Berger reminded the chair
that this was not Senate business.

Chaturvedi said these details
were out of line.

Walkuski had other issues
with the ROTC Committee, one being that an open meeting was never held.� Walkuski stated that he was the sole member
who voted to allow ROTC.� This information
is outlined in his minority report, he said, which he was given two days to
prepare.� Walkuski reiterated the charge
of the committee, which he felt had not been addressed.� He challenged the issue of ROTC being in
conflict with the mission statement of the college.� Walkuski further discussed people�s right to
freedom of speech, which he thinks the ROTC report is in violation of, since
the military is under civil law. He pointed out that he has had that section of
the law put on reserve at the library.�
He argued the ROTC committee�s contention that the culture of the military
is in conflict with the mission statement, as well.� Walkuski wanted to go on record as saying he
feels strongly against denying the influence on ROTC on campus.

R. Olsson agreed with
Walkuski, explaining that he grew up in a military family and felt that he was
not in agreement with the statements the ROTC Committee made regarding military
life and the negative influence of the military.

P. Buckenmeyer
asked if, in the deliberations, did anyone resolve
that ROTC wanted to use classroom space as opposed to just using a classroom on
campus? He stated that there is a fundamental difference

J. Walkuski pointed out that
he challenged the difference between use of classroom space and ROTC being
officially recognized on campus, but felt the ROTC Committee had not taken this
into consideration. Walkuski felt this was an important distinction.

B. Griffen
felt that allowing ROTC to hold classes on campus meant incorporation of their
beliefs on campus which, his committee felt, is in opposition to the mission statement.

K. Russell explained that she
was the one who convened the committee, with G. Douglas serving as co-chair.
She said the progressive faculty group whom they addressed felt that allowing
ROTC to hold classes on campus felt this was in contradiction to our mission
statement.

The Provost expressed her
concern that there was a distinction about ROTC just using our classrooms to
hold classes versus SUNY Cortland incorporating ROTC in our curriculum.

B. Griffen
addressed Provost Davis-Russell�s concerns by asking, �Isn�t allowing them to
use classrooms on this campus saying we are instituting the ROTC program on
campus?�

The Provost indicated she
felt there was a difference between us implementing ROTC course offerings and
allowing ROTC to use our space.

B. Griffen
felt it was not a substantive issue and that there findings were in
contradiction to what the Provost was saying.�
He remarked that the mission statement is stated to not allow such a
presence on campus.

The Provost asked if the
committee did see that the task was incorporating a use for space?

B. Griffen
said �incorporating was synonymous with them being on campus and he felt that
the mission statement does not allow for this.

J. Walkuski stated, for the
record, that the committee did not fully understand their charge. He felt that
there was confusion about them using space as opposed to us installing ROTC on
campus.

K. Russell said that she
understood the distinction and knows the distinction.� She felt that by allowing ROTC on campus it is
increasing their presence.� She further
said that ROTC is already on campus, since ROTC students take classes here.

C. DeGouff
spoke to the fact that students attend school here due to ROTC scholarships and
that it would be unfair not to allow them the opportunity to take advantage of
such scholarships by denying their presence here.

Chaturvedi ended the meeting
by saying the debate could be further clarified on the 4/5 meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:40.

XVI.� AREA SENATORS REPORTS:

No report.

XVII. SUNY SENATOR: No report.

XVIII. STUDENT SENATOR
REPORTS:

D. Vegas reported that last
week representatives from ASC came to the Student Senate where the new meal
plans were voted on.� The SGA voted in
favor of the new meal plans and Vegas said the students are very pleased with
that outcome.� The previous night, she
stated, B. Griffen came to SGA and reported on behalf
of the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc ROTC Committee.�
The students supported the recommendations from Griffen�s
committee that ROTC not be allowed to hold classes on this campus.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:30 PM

Respectively Submitted,

Barbara Kissel

Recording Secretary

The following reports are
appended to the Minutes in the order reported and submitted by Senators and
other members.

(1) Letter from Department
Chairs in the Sciences submitted by R. Spitzer